Guns in restaurants draw stares but little outcry

[El Paso Resident]

Would Mexico have it's problems it has now, if the HONEST citizens could have guns?

[Wah Wah Wah]

SCurtis wrote:

<quoted text>
You clearly do not understand strict constructionism, which states that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the intent of the Framers at the time it was written. The Constitution is not a "living document" meant to be reinterpreted at wim. It is designed to be Amended via an intentionally difficult process that involves gaining the approval of both the Congress and most of the states.

No, I understand it just fine.

Your belief that somehow the Constitution is being "reinterpreted at [whim]" is, just like I said a couple of posts previous, regurgitating a Republican talking point that somehow the democratic process is being subverted. I don't buy it.

But I'll bite. Wasn't the Framers' intent that the people should be allowed to bear arms so they could protect themselves from government tyranny?(I believe it's a Thomas Jefferson quote that's been used in this forum.) Are we currently subject to government tyranny? More important, if a law attempts to regulate gun ownership, does that make us susceptible to government tyranny? I would argue "no".

[DAS]

Hey they all drink ,so thats a LOADED GUN.....And then DRIVE,another Loaded CANNON

[DAS]

El Paso Resident wrote:

Would Mexico have it's problems it has now, if the HONEST citizens could have guns?

We are loaded with Guns,and we still have problems Like MExico.....Just look at The News....Guns are just steel,without bullets you have to use it as a Bat or Hammer

[raygoto]

Wah Wah Wah wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I understand it just fine.
Your belief that somehow the Constitution is being "reinterpreted at [whim]" is, just like I said a couple of posts previous, regurgitating a Republican talking point that somehow the democratic process is being subverted. I don't buy it.
But I'll bite. Wasn't the Framers' intent that the people should be allowed to bear arms so they could protect themselves from government tyranny?(I believe it's a Thomas Jefferson quote that's been used in this forum.) Are we currently subject to government tyranny? More important, if a law attempts to regulate gun ownership, does that make us susceptible to government tyranny? I would argue "no".

What else would you say, since they have already taken most of your gun rights away. Tyranny is always on the horizon, because Tyrants are always on the horizon. "I love my country, but I do not trust my government". Australia is our great friend and always has been no matter what. Your ancestors , like ours have proven to be some of the Bravest people the world has ever known, what happened ? I know ! The very same thing, that is happening here. Frog in the pot transformation !

[hmcoh]

We're US Citizens. We're Armed. Get used to it!

[Wah Wah Wah]

BanditZeroThree wrote:

<quoted text>
G'Day...Geelong Grammar "Old Boy" here.
A good read on this subject are the Amicus briefs filed under the Washington DC Gun Ban case, currently in front of the US Supreme Court. Both sides of the debate are represented. The pro-DC gun ban side, is wrong, however. It's not personal.:-)
Go Cats!
B3
out

An excellent idea! There's a lot to read (for both sides), but even a cursory glance makes it clear that this is not a black-or-white issue, as so many here seem to think.

[hmcoh]

Wah Wah Wah wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, well, glad we cleared THAT up!
<quoted text>
I agree that the militia is to be well-regulated.
<quoted text>
OK, first of all: did you say, "...is meant to..."? Didn't you just YELL AT ME to read it literally? I could just as easily dismiss your reading as interpreting "college poetry."
But if THE PEOPLE are the militia, then THE PEOPLE should be well-regulated, yes? I get the impression that for you,*any* attempt to regulate the militia is an infringement on the rights of THE PEOPLE.
<quoted text>
All these quotes are fine and dandy, but they're not in the Constitution, are they? I mean, I'm just trying to follow your argument through. You YELL AT ME to read it literally, then you cut-and-paste the numerous quotes (as many others here have) that convey what the Founding Fathers *meant*. I thought we were supposed to focus on what the Constitution *said*.
It says, "a well-regulated militia". OK, so who's the militia? You claim it's THE PEOPLE. OK, by that logic, THE PEOPLE are to be well-regulated. Again, I'm just trying to follow your argument through.
So doesn't the Constitution allow THE PEOPLE to be well-regulated in a way that doesn't infringe on their rights?

Having read the transcript of the D.C v. HELLER oral arguments in the U.S.Supreme Court repeatedly, and conversing about the matter with several friends that are attorneys, I can say with a fair amount of confidence that the court's decision will be that the 2nd amendment right to bear arms does apply to individuals, not just state regulated militias. And, that that right may be reasonably restricted,(i.e.; no machine guns, no walking down the street with a 12 gauge shotgun strapped on) and that complete bans on ownership, like that of Washington D.C. or Chicago are unconstitutional and must be repealed.

[hmcoh]

DAS wrote:

But you cant smoke,You can KILL and endanger men,women,and Children,get drunk and act Like JESSE JAMES but no smoking...hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mm

Where exactly is it that we can kill and endanger men, women and children, get drunk and act like Jesse James? I'm not real big on the killing people part, but the getting drunk and acting like Jesse James sounds fun!

[Marty McFly and Biff]

"There are families in here, children in here," Cathy Nolasco said. "It bothers me."

safest restaurant in town, lady.

No Virginia Tech loonie would have the BALLS to attack there.

[Anatole France]

Ed S wrote:

The police will always be there in time... to draw the chaulk lines.

If you can't spell, don't post. I hope your accuracy is better than your orthography!

[Justifiably Bellicose]

Wah Wah Wah wrote:

<quoted text>
"Legislating from the bench"? "Suddenly finding things?" These are simply Republican talking points intended to whip people into a frenzy that somehow the democratic process is being subverted. I just don't buy into that kind of conspiracy theory. I really don't see it, even if you're sure that you do.

Calling everything a "republican talking point" whenever they have you back-to-the-wall is just a democrat talking point. What you're trying to do is distract from the fact that judges DO claim to suddenly find some new understanding of a law that has been settled for a long time.

So you're full of ****, and you know it, and your response tells us all that you know it, and that you know that we know you know it.

[Justifiably Bellicose]

Wah Wah Wah wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I understand it just fine.
Your belief that somehow the Constitution is being "reinterpreted at [whim]" is, just like I said a couple of posts previous, regurgitating a Republican talking point that somehow the democratic process is being subverted. I don't buy it.

Of course not. Like all good leftist Democrats, you believe that the only people who ever subvert democracy are Republicans.

It's sort of like Al Sharpton insisting that black people can't possibly be racist. We understand. You're hiding from the truth. It is scary, so we don't blame you.

[Alex]

Wah Wah Wah wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, well, glad we cleared THAT up!
<quoted text>
I agree that the militia is to be well-regulated.
<quoted text>
OK, first of all: did you say, "...is meant to..."? Didn't you just YELL AT ME to read it literally? I could just as easily dismiss your reading as interpreting "college poetry."
But if THE PEOPLE are the militia, then THE PEOPLE should be well-regulated, yes? I get the impression that for you,*any* attempt to regulate the militia is an infringement on the rights of THE PEOPLE.
<quoted text>
All these quotes are fine and dandy, but they're not in the Constitution, are they? I mean, I'm just trying to follow your argument through. You YELL AT ME to read it literally, then you cut-and-paste the numerous quotes (as many others here have) that convey what the Founding Fathers *meant*. I thought we were supposed to focus on what the Constitution *said*.
It says, "a well-regulated militia". OK, so who's the militia? You claim it's THE PEOPLE. OK, by that logic, THE PEOPLE are to be well-regulated. Again, I'm just trying to follow your argument through.
So doesn't the Constitution allow THE PEOPLE to be well-regulated in a way that doesn't infringe on their rights?

Like I said before the National Guard and Naval Militia did not exist when the bill of rights was written. The only militia that existed when the second amendment was written was the civilian militia, which consists of the people. The legal definition of “militia” is as follows:

US CODE >TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The militia referred to in the second amendment, which is composed of the people, can still be well regulated without infringing on the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps a couple quotes from that time era that consist of the words 'WELL REGULATED MILITIA' will help you understand the meaning of it a little better.

“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a ‘WELL REGULATED MILITIA,’ would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

“I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the ‘BEST REGULATED MILITIA’ that can be got.”- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4,(G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

[DAS]

Good combination,44Magnum and BOOZE...DODGE CITY USA

[Plant Lady]

SCurtis wrote:

<quoted text>
I dry practice holster presentation, malfunction clearing and reloading drills several times a week. I shoot at the range at least twice a month and shoot IDPA or other practical matches at least once a month. I recently returned from a 4-Day 40+ hour defensive handgun course. I can consistently draw my weapon from a concealed holster and fire two sighted shots into the thoracic cavity at up to 45 feet in under 1.5 seconds.
The average criminal carries a cheap gun such as a Jennings .380 or a Cobra 9mm. Most do not know how to handle a gun properly or shoot a gun correctly. Few have any training at all and fewer get any regular practice. These are FACTS and there are good reasons for these facts.
Quality guns are expensive. Proper belts and holsters are expensive. Ammunition is getting to be very expensive and range time is not always cheap either.
I have approximately $2500 invested in my carry guns, belts, holsters and magazine pouches. I spend about $100/mo on ammunition, targets and cleaning supplies. I spend another couple hundred a year on range fees and club dues. Do you really think the punk robbing the liquor store has that kind of disposable income laying around.
Sorry, but I like my odds just fine.

I recently read an article that states the armed criminal is seeking professional weapons training these days. Unfortunatly I failed to book mark the site. I will try to find it again. It seemed to me all the more reason to carry my own weapon and be trained to use it.

[Plant Lady]

Ted Nugent wrote:

<quoted text>
Definitely go with the .45 ACP.
There's just something particularly inspiring about the view from the muzzle end that might spare you from actually having to use it.
And that is really the whole idea if you're going to carry at all - deterrence.

1911 by my side for several years now.

[steveg]

Oh God wrote:

<quoted text>
Who are the gun owners protecting? Where do you see that
you are protecting anything but your own rights. When has your gun or any other gun owner ever saved any innocent from being murdered? Your only perserving your own lust and delusions!

Boy have you been living in a cave!

[cat]

I sure hope their burgers weren't overcooked, undercooked and their 'drinks' weren't watered down.

Uh Oh !

The Wild West Is Back ! Any of them wearing a Sheriffs Badge?

[Monty]

Wah Wah Wah wrote:

<quoted text>
"Legislating from the bench"? "Suddenly finding things?" These are simply Republican talking points intended to whip people into a frenzy that somehow the democratic process is being subverted. I just don't buy into that kind of conspiracy theory. I really don't see it, even if you're sure that you do.

Republican tallking points, eh? Even when independent constitutional scholars say the same thing?

So do you believe there is no politicizing by SCOTUS?